Martin Harvey

I have been convinced for sometime that the House of Lords would become, in the eyes of the Europhiles, a chamber of APPOINTED representatives of the English Regions. For a start Paul White was promoted to the Lords by Blair to become Lord Hanningfield (Conservative), some years ago. He has since represented the EERA on the committee of the regions, and his Essex County Council still is the major element in the EERA.
This is very dangerous territory,
Martin Harvey.

Millennium3

Like MKPD I can see no benefit of having the members of the HOL elected - this process is bound to be severely influenced by the political parties which means that the most likely outcome would be a replica of the HOC.

Originally the hereditary peers were appointed by the monarch. I do believe the concept of handing this responsibility on to the eldest son [child?] is flawed since there is no certainty that the son will be of the same stature as the father. If we were to return to the same principle - that the appointment of the Lords was given to an independent committee whose chairman was decided by the monarch - the individuals appointed would provide a different prospective to the important issues of the time. Particularly if the expectation was simply to appoint individuals who had demonstrated through their life's work not only talent but also a high degree of integrety.

I agree with AB that it is v important that the individuals selected should have no allegiance to any political party so they could decided the merits and demerits of each piece of legislation on their own judgment - in order to achieve this it would be necessary that the appointment was made on the condition that any previous loyalties were foresworn. Practically within their investiture.

This government was elected by 35% of those voting, since the turnout was only 61% this represents just 21% of the total electorate - gone are the days that the party elected can claim a mandate from the people!

Given that the politicians are becoming increasingly unpopular - this 21% is likely to fall even further in the ensuing years. For this reason I believe the HOL's should be given stronger powers beyond their present capacity to simply delay.

Should they believe a bill presented by the government of the day was not in the nations interest, I would give them the power to hold a binding referendum on the issue so that the governments proposal could be rejected.

kernow

But then it would be on party lines and we don't want a Lib/Lab/Con house of Lords, we want an independent house of intelligent free thinkers!

ukip kipper

What about electing Lords using a pure PR system?

Leigh Quilter

Because that would challenge the legitimacy of the Commons which uses the technically less FPTP system. It could even become a rival house. Not that that would be a bad thing; it's just you'd have a constant stalemate in Parliament.

eublues

At a guess the EU would decide the voting system that could be used for a reformed second chamber.

harryaldridge

How about this as an idea for HoL reform?

Lords represent local authorities (districts, counties, towns, cities). They are indirectly elected by the councillors of that authroity. The Lords take no whip and so are independent but can affilliate to political parties.

The advanatges of this is that local authroities have a voice in the legislature; Lords can be elected on substance rather than populist appeal and big campaigning; the HoL cannot be stuffed with cronies by the big parties; it increases the importance of local democracy; and since the HoL would be indirectly elected the houses would not have equal legitimacy so keeping the supremacy of the Commons.

Thoughts?

Millennium3

I would prefer the Lords to be selected by a committee appointed by the monarch as I have stated above. However, in common with HA's suggestion, I believe it is essential for those being selected to be independent without affiliation to any political party. I think it would be very difficult to keep the Party machines out of any elective process.

Whatever system is employed it seems essential to me, that the Lords have the power to refer any issue to the electorate if they believe what is being proposed by the government is against the nations will. That is to say call for a national referendum on the issue.

The days when the government of the day can claim a mandate from the people have gone [temporarily/permanently?] with Blair being chosen by little more than 20% of the electorate.

Paul Beck

Not too unlike the EU Commission? :?

A lot of countires do OK with just one chamber, New Zealand being one example.

I don't see the point in electing people to the House of Commons, if they can be over-ruled by by unelected people in the House of Lords. We have enough that from Brussels without continuing it in the UK.